Wellman v. Kawasaki, 525 P.3d 139

Married in 1999; three children (two minors at trial). Kawasaki was primarily a homemaker for most of the marriage; by trial she worked as a receptionist (gross $3,667/mo); Wellman earned $10,833/mo as an engineer.
Temporary orders (post-separation) made Kawasaki primary custodial parent, required Wellman to pay child support and the marital mortgage (in lieu of alimony), and gave Kawasaki exclusive use of the marital home.
In the years before trial Wellman intermittently lived in the basement, sometimes paid the mortgage, often did not pay formal child-support payments (but paid bills/groceries); at trial he had ceased mortgage payments.
Kawasaki failed to timely supplement a 2017 financial declaration or produce a year of bank/credit statements as ordered; she offered few documentary proofs at trial and gave only vague testimony about expenses.
After a two-day bench trial the court awarded Kawasaki sole physical custody, child support and arrears, divided house equity equally within a year but awarded title to Wellman, allocated marital debts equally, and denied Kawasaki any alimony for lack of proof of need.

Issue	Kawasaki's Argument	Wellman's Argument	Held
Entitlement to alimony	Kawasaki sought alimony to maintain marital standard of living; claimed need despite disclosure gaps	Kawasaki failed to prove need or provide required financial documentation; burden on her	Denied — court found Kawasaki did not meet burden; denial not an abuse of discretion
Effect of untimely financial disclosures	Court erred by excluding untimely bank statements and thereby refusing to consider alimony	Untimely documents were properly excluded; without them Kawasaki could not prove needs	Court considered alimony on record; exclusion of untimely evidence appropriate; nondisclosure left Kawasaki unable to carry burden
Whether court should impute expenses from record	Court could impute basic expenses (housing, food) and award some alimony	Evidence was too vague and unsupportive to impute meaningful expenses	Imputation was discretionary; refusal to impute was not an abuse given weak evidence and that even imputed amounts would not produce an alimony award after child support and Kawasaki’s income
Thunderbird/separate-property claim	Kawasaki contended the Thunderbird was a gift/separate property so she shouldn’t share its debt	Vehicle was discussed only as a marital liability used to pay marital debts	Unpreserved at trial; appellate court declined to consider the separate-property claim

Fox v. Fox, 515 P.3d 481 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (review alimony determination for abuse of discretion)
Miner v. Miner, 496 P.3d 242 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (trial court alimony rulings upheld if within discretion and supported by findings)
Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985) (origin of Jones factors for alimony: needs, earning capacity, payor ability)
Dahl v. Dahl, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah 2015) (party seeking alimony must present credible financial declaration and documentation; courts may impute figures)
Munoz-Madrid v. Carlos-Moran, 427 P.3d 420 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (upholding imputation where testimonial evidence supported specific expenses)
Rule v. Rule, 402 P.3d 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (alimony determinations require adequate findings)
Eberhard v. Eberhard, 449 P.3d 202 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (reversing alimony award for lack of specific findings tying award to recipient’s needs)
Bakanowski v. Bakanowski, 80 P.3d 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (trial court abused discretion by failing to enter specific findings on financial needs)
Roberts v. Roberts, 335 P.3d 378 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (recipient’s demonstrated need caps alimony award regardless of payor’s ability)
Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, 402 P.3d 219 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (trial courts have wide discretion to fashion alimony remedies)